Addressing these in no particular order, It's very unlikely we will be rolling all of Sag into a single map, for a couple reasons. First, workload. Sag's (currently) comprised of six individual map files, with a meta map that dictates (among other things) where each system is. To strip the six maps and rebuild it into one would be something of a masochistic undertaking. So we won't be doing that. Too, keeping the systems modular like they are allows for flexibility in moving stuff around, should the need/want arise. Much easier just to edit the context map for the entire server than to move every single object for each system in the map. Also easier to swap in/out system that way too. I'll also point out that it is possible to wormhole from one system to another (but not server to server). Granted, might not be very fast, and you might have to make as least two hops, but it's possible, so it's not like we need to make a merged map to ease worm-holing.

On gates, namely routing options and placement of select gates, the Luyten gate in Tau Ceti has already been moved away from Fargo Rock, no this isnt in beta (yet). The R33 and Luyten gates in Cincinnati will probably be moved, though exactly where is TBD. Ditto too the Kaus gate in Cincinnati, but that's dependant on where the Luyten gate gets moved to, if at all. However, making more drastic edits to gate paths likely won't happen, unless say, system placements change or systems are added/removed. That's chiefly a workload issue, and typically gate work is the last item on the list for any major overhauls at any rate.

Current AI presence levels won't be adjusted without approval from Faustus. Don't expect this to get changed. This means pirates aren't likely to suddenly take over Luyten (or any other system for that matter), and let's be honest here, you don't really want another uncaptureable system do you? Because that's pretty much was was suggested there.

As for more sweeping changes, scaling up the Mycopia cluster is do-able and will probably get looked into. Suggestions along the lines of greater symmetry, having smaller systems (in terms of planet count), and/or more systems... perhaps. Aestetics aside (I personally dont much care for overly symetrical maps, and let me put it this way, if there's already complaints about it the map being the same all the time, here's another way in which it'd be the same), moving systems around is, again, easy enough, though it does require some pre-planning, and naturally, shuffling the whole MV take more planning than just Sag. Adding and (to a lesser extent) removing systems really needs to be cleared with Faustus first, as this has the potential to effect server load (read: you guys complaining about lag).

Having planets actively orbit, yet only update their position on a once-daily basis is something that's been added to the bug/feature tracker. That's a code change functionality though, which typically means a Faustus job. It's also low priority.

Part ][

Metaverse and server layouts. There was a suggestion for the 1.483 MV revision. This almost certainly won't be happening. While the map could probably be pulled out of the subversion repository, there's enough minor and major changes that'd make it difficult to pin down a specific version. And that's just for the overall layout, the map file would still have to be spanned across all the server, which will naturally add a bit of work. Additionally I'd question if that's even worth it, given how much activity the servers-which-arent-sag see. Plus, progress...onwards and upwards and all that.

That said, I did briefly entertain the notion of the 1.480 mv, seen here with the current mv for comparison. Speaking hypothetically, were we to go that route, there is a certain degree of symmetry there. 3 arms for each faction's home server with 5 systems each (give or take), plenty of systems in the center to fight over, and plenty of gates to let one side move around without getting hung up on the same two gates all the time (ICC, I'm looking at you...), it moves in some larger systems (Eps Carnie, Eps Ind, Barnard) which offer both a change of scenery and more planets to fight over (Fargo, Mycopia, I'm looking at you...)

R33 would likely end up in a position similar to Delta Pav, but west of Luyten between UGTO and ICC territory, R33, Eps Carnie and DPav would also likely get jumpgates for easier access (given how flakey wormholes are currently), and Cincinnati would likely end up as part of Rogen's.

However, given that some systems (Struve, Lacaile, Epsies Ind and Carnie, etc) would be moved out of their current servers, Procyon (which would likely get renamed in such a case) and Rogen's Rift and Ursa Minor would need some new systems created for them. Towards that end I do have a short list of some older systems which now exist in name only (no usable maps) that can be used as a starting point for new maps. And before anyone asks (Lacro, I'm looking at you...), no Nicea isnt one of them. That's long dead and gone. End of. Moving right along. If we decide that yes, we want to put in some new maps, we'll probably draw up some sort of open call event, and get in some community made maps. Not saying that will happen mind you, but it might not be a bad idea to start thinking about some doodles now.

In all likelyhood, the next major revision will have a similar sort of layout, in that there'll be 3 main arms that are basically linear, a center in some mostly-geometric design depending on how many systems are there, and newbie and the AI servers out between the arms. So there.

Part ]|[
Time Frame: 2 Weeks™.
Realistically, there isn't one. We've got enough stuff on deck for 1.670 as is. We'll probably get in some minor gate edits (see above), but anything above and beyond that isn't currently a high priority item and thus will get left for some future patch.
_________________

Posted: 2011-06-27 08:02 &nbsp
i actually aprove of the merging of sag as it only caused more problems when it was split up into these secondary areas (for those of you that do not remember there was the time when you couldn't transfer between servers the time all the gates were buged the cluttered server list and i could go on if i had 5 years of my life to check for anything else that went wrong because of it)[ This Message was edited by: jamesbob on 2011-06-27 09:45 ]

On 2011-06-27 08:02, jamesbob wrote:
i actually aprove of the merging of sag as it only caused more problems when it was split up into these secondary areas (for those of you that do not remember there was the time when you couldn't transfer between servers the time all the gates were buged the cluttered server list and i could go on if i had 5 years of my life to check for anything else that went wrong because of it)[ This Message was edited by: jamesbob on 2011-06-27 09:45 ]

.... what?

i thought the so called "cluttered" server list is so much better then this stodgy orion business, but that is off topic...

on topic it's nice to see that there are changes in the works even if they arn't high priority.
_________________

Do a little rearranging of the system placement and remove the superflous ones.

And now you have really important planets, people fighting over more systems because combat is concentrated (and a lost system really does become lost), and you get the joy of being able to implement systems to make fewer systems more important without having to micromanage and balance the importance of 300 planets most people never even see because they don't have a good reason to.

I'm sure the loss of so many useless planets would make the server load happier too, so you can get a bit more creative.

With less planets though, I'd also go with making them stronger and taking longer to capture.

At the very least that point you get a much more fluid combat scenario, combat gets a hell of alot more concentrated, and newbies don't get confused as hell.

And for any person who really says we need 300 planets, just.. just really. Come on. You really can't be serious. You don't even need 200. The vast majority of people don't even touch more than the same 20 on a day to day basis, so hell if we want a real change of who fights where, where battles actually move out of Sagi, why don't we start by killing off everything we really don't need.

The only, the only exception to it, should be Home Systems. Whether it be Human or AI, let them be big and beautiful. But everything else? Can we please, please turn a widely unused MV into something alot more dynamic?

Taking the .480 map and running with it (thus being the main MV, this proposition is largely for that), you're looking at maybe 150 planets total. Cutting the map by half without actually changing how many systems there are.

Remember, as a general rule, and if anyone really needs this pointed out they need to really think about how much anyone has fought over a system that wasn't Luyten, Tau, or Episilon over the past freaking year on a day to day basis. And then come back to me and really try to convince me that we need all these planets. We don't.

Players want a change of scenery, but they also want combat. You get the best of both worlds here. Hell, better worlds, because fewer planets = concentrated combat. Fewer planets = system to system battles becomes a change of scenery. Fewer planets = planets that need to be protected rather than let go with a casual hand wave.

Three birds. one stone. I know you're missing the map editor now. And I know doing this will be an utter pain in the rear (I'd do it my damn self I knew how), and that its low on the priority list and not likely to happen anyways because for some strange reason people have an obsession over having tons and tons of planets they'll never see (even if we did have 200 people on every day).

Posted: 2011-06-27 20:54 &nbsp
Just having offense bases actually cause major damage to ships would do a lot to making planet capture require something other than "orbit planet, wait until it caps". Though personally I'd like to see planet loyalty not start dropping unless friendly troops are either wiped out, or outnumbered by enemy troops.
_________________Adapt or die.

On 2011-06-27 20:54, Talien wrote:
Just having offense bases actually cause major damage to ships would do a lot to making planet capture require something other than "orbit planet, wait until it caps". Though personally I'd like to see planet loyalty not start dropping unless friendly troops are either wiped out, or outnumbered by enemy troops.

while your post does have some good bits in it the anti ship base is still a paintball gun shooting skywards its more effective against icc ships because they can not repair their shields.

sadly ugto and kluth can repair there armor so basically you just see 3 to 4 stations providing repair drones and turning armor and anti ship base is instantly rendered useless.
_________________

while your post does have some good bits in it the anti ship base is still a paintball gun shooting skywards its more effective against icc ships because they can not repair their shields.

sadly ugto and kluth can repair there armor so basically you just see 3 to 4 stations providing repair drones and turning armor and anti ship base is instantly rendered useless.

All ICC has to do is face one direction and keep reinforcing that shield facing, and turn on defense mode periodically. Planetary defense bases are a joke no matter what faction you are, even a planet full of offense 2 bases won't be able to keep up.
_________________Adapt or die.

All ICC has to do is face one direction and keep reinforcing that shield facing, and turn on defense mode periodically. Planetary defense bases are a joke no matter what faction you are, even a planet full of offense 2 bases won't be able to keep up.

for some reason that seems to confirm my origional post.

tell you what when the stop nerfing stuff that doesn't need to be nerfed (such as defence bases that are now worth NOTHING because of the magical imaginary server lag that i never got from big defence zones and i am in australia) and bring back the defence bases to what THEY SHOULD BE.

i will stop wording posts to the point where there are second meanings in them.

but the chances of either of those happening ARE SLIM .
____________________________________________________________